Tips to keep the Save file in the green
I might be wrong, but isn't /tmp kept in RAM?Colonel Panic wrote:A thought has occurred here. Is it possible to put the browser cache completely in RAM in such a way that way it it doesn't burden the save file but flushes itself completely when Puppy is switched off?
This one could be an option, too: simple GUI ramdisk script
Greetings!
[color=red][size=75][O]bdurate [R]ules [D]estroy [E]nthusiastic [R]ebels => [C]reative [H]umans [A]lways [O]pen [S]ource[/size][/color]
[b][color=green]Omnia mea mecum porto.[/color][/b]
[b][color=green]Omnia mea mecum porto.[/color][/b]
-
Jasper
Hi SFR,
Firstly, thank you very much for your excellent LargeFileFinder pet.
Then. thank you for your link just above re /mnt/ramdisk, however I don't fully understand how the ramdisk works.
I can download files to it and copy (or move) folders and filies to it and I understand they will be lost on a ramdisk unmount or a full reboot/exit.
My Linux Portable version of QtWeb browser and all its subsidiary files are stored in a folder I named QtWeb. It was easy to copy the QtWeb folder to /mnt/ramdisk and then run QtWeb from within it, but htop showed normal RAM usage - i.e. there was no saving of "standard" RAM.
My attempt to save "standard" RAM by running QtWeb portable from /mnt/ramdisk seems to be an experiment far beyond the realms of probable success. However. if you have time to hint how the /mnt/ramdisk might best be used (in addition to your cache type suggestion) that would be much appreciated.
My regards
Firstly, thank you very much for your excellent LargeFileFinder pet.
Then. thank you for your link just above re /mnt/ramdisk, however I don't fully understand how the ramdisk works.
I can download files to it and copy (or move) folders and filies to it and I understand they will be lost on a ramdisk unmount or a full reboot/exit.
My Linux Portable version of QtWeb browser and all its subsidiary files are stored in a folder I named QtWeb. It was easy to copy the QtWeb folder to /mnt/ramdisk and then run QtWeb from within it, but htop showed normal RAM usage - i.e. there was no saving of "standard" RAM.
My attempt to save "standard" RAM by running QtWeb portable from /mnt/ramdisk seems to be an experiment far beyond the realms of probable success. However. if you have time to hint how the /mnt/ramdisk might best be used (in addition to your cache type suggestion) that would be much appreciated.
My regards
Hey Jasper.
Hmm, I don't really know why htop doesn't want to include ramdisk in its RAM stats...perhaps because it's seen as a filesystem, not a part of actual RAM..?
To see actual size and usage of the ramdisk, I use:
Also:
seems to be more accurate than htop.
As for usage hints for ramdisk, it's hard to me to think of anything more than saving space on a savefile/disk by putting temporary files into it...but, for example, such a ramdisk could be useful for operations that need a lot of disk reads/writes.
Using RAM would be a lot faster in such cases...
PS. I'm glad you like LFF - thanks! &
Greetings!
Hmm, I don't really know why htop doesn't want to include ramdisk in its RAM stats...perhaps because it's seen as a filesystem, not a part of actual RAM..?
To see actual size and usage of the ramdisk, I use:
Code: Select all
df /mnt/ramdiskCode: Select all
freeAs for usage hints for ramdisk, it's hard to me to think of anything more than saving space on a savefile/disk by putting temporary files into it...but, for example, such a ramdisk could be useful for operations that need a lot of disk reads/writes.
Using RAM would be a lot faster in such cases...
PS. I'm glad you like LFF - thanks! &
Greetings!
[color=red][size=75][O]bdurate [R]ules [D]estroy [E]nthusiastic [R]ebels => [C]reative [H]umans [A]lways [O]pen [S]ource[/size][/color]
[b][color=green]Omnia mea mecum porto.[/color][/b]
[b][color=green]Omnia mea mecum porto.[/color][/b]
I recommend treesize.
Do you know a good gtkdialog program? Please post a link here
Classic Puppy quotes
ROOT FOREVER
GTK2 FOREVER
Classic Puppy quotes
ROOT FOREVER
GTK2 FOREVER
Here is my latest update. I had to go back to using Ubuntu 12.04 because my save file which is now a little more than 4GB in size is still showing red. When I go to find out what is taking up all the space I find files and folders totalIng wrong 160MB. Shouldn't that leave me over 3GB of free savefile space?
Is there a way I can create a partition on my HD and make that my save file? I could make it 15 to 30GB in size. This way my savefile will always show green instead of red and without all the warnings to free up space or increase the size of the save file.
There is a reason I always seem to go back to Puppy Linux. I love the simplicity, speed and the look and feel of it. If I can get this savefile issue resolved once and for all without having to do a full install of puppy and staying with a frugal install, I will be beyond happy!!
Thanks again for all the help. I have another issue regarding puppy that I think I will put in another thread.
Is there a way I can create a partition on my HD and make that my save file? I could make it 15 to 30GB in size. This way my savefile will always show green instead of red and without all the warnings to free up space or increase the size of the save file.
There is a reason I always seem to go back to Puppy Linux. I love the simplicity, speed and the look and feel of it. If I can get this savefile issue resolved once and for all without having to do a full install of puppy and staying with a frugal install, I will be beyond happy!!
Thanks again for all the help. I have another issue regarding puppy that I think I will put in another thread.
I decided to do a full install of Puppy Linux 5.2.8 on my Dell 4500S because it was driving me crazy always having to adjust the save file and make symlinks from the Root directory to an area outside the Root directory. I tried cleaning up my Root directory but I was still getting orange or red indicators instead of green.
So now with a full install I don't have to worry about that anymore. Too bad because I liked the flexibilty of having a Savefile but didn't want to constantly keep an eye on my root directory and move stuff around to free up space in the savefile even though I wasn't using up that much space. Still don't understand that if I have a save file of let's say 512MB and I am getting red indicators only using up about 130-160MB, where is the difference going?
So now with a full install I don't have to worry about that anymore. Too bad because I liked the flexibilty of having a Savefile but didn't want to constantly keep an eye on my root directory and move stuff around to free up space in the savefile even though I wasn't using up that much space. Still don't understand that if I have a save file of let's say 512MB and I am getting red indicators only using up about 130-160MB, where is the difference going?
-
Colonel Panic
- Posts: 2171
- Joined: Sat 16 Sep 2006, 11:09
Thanks, I'll look into it.SFR wrote:I might be wrong, but isn't /tmp kept in RAM?Colonel Panic wrote:A thought has occurred here. Is it possible to put the browser cache completely in RAM in such a way that way it it doesn't burden the save file but flushes itself completely when Puppy is switched off?
This one could be an option, too: simple GUI ramdisk script
Greetings!
Cheers,
CP .
Gigabyte M68MT-52P motherboard, AMD Athlon II X4 630, 5.8 GB of DDR3 RAM and a 250 GB Hitachi hard drive running Ubuntu 16.04.6, MX-19.2, Peppermint 10, PCLinuxOS 20.02, LXLE 18.04.3, Pardus 19.2, exGENT 200119, Bionic Pup 8.0 and Xenial CE 7.5 XL.